I still think that there needs to be an investigation into price fixing in the oil industry.
Yeah, I know. Last time the oil companies paid for a full page ad saying that there was no evidence of large scale price fixing on the retail level. Nobody else was talking about the retail level.
Just watch the quarterly earnings of the big oil companies for the next several months. They won’t be able to hide the enormous profits the current unrest will yield.
Health insurance premiums are up year after year as are the deductibles and yes the profits generated by these “providers” are (disproportionately) up also.
There is actually plenty of excess oil available. This is not the result of supply and demand. This is a result of speculation. It truly is an abhorrent practice. This is the one time that I and most libs will probably stand together.
But just know, speculation is a trader creation, not so much the oil companies themselves (though they do tend to benefit and have gained greater influence in the more recent years).
Yes, greater energy, especially oil, in dependency is a need… but that’s not going to totally solve the price issues as caused by speculation. But it would put a squeeze on those people to act more ethically or face actual penalty.
^Actually, Dj, while I am with you on speculation, I am not when you say there is plenty of excess oil. There’s good reason to believe we have reached Peak Oil, and it’s basically downhill from here.
When petroleum was discovered in Pennsylvania (yes, Pennsylvania!) it was oozing out of the ground. Now we have to go offshore, or use oil-bearing shale, or just go farther and spend more to get what we can. We need real alternatives.
I’m currently reading Atomic Awakening, which claims that we are being pushed back to nuclear, but that there is cause for optimism in terms of making it safe. We’ll see.
While speculation has more to do with “trends” than supply and demand, the oil companies DO always end up with profits. There is no current supply problem, but it will come. The substitution of natural gas, through “fracting” is threatening the nation’s water supplies, so that “environmentally friendly” ring of natural gas is losing it’s luster quickly. But that doesn’t stop industry from putting the “drill baby drill” lady on TV to brainwash morons with “the deeper we go, the more you love us”.
Misdirection is the secret to magic, and making money today.
If “peak oil is a myth” then we should do away with the Oil Industry’s depletion allowance tax breaks that pad Oil’s bottom line but cost the Government hundreds of billions of dollars in tax revenue. If oil supplies are unlimited, why should they get corporate welfare for depleting their resource?
Actually, we should get rid of the depletion allowances, regardless of the supply quantities. If it’s wrong for the taxpayers to have to pay for public employees’ pensions, it’s equally wrong for taxpayers to pay for a private company’s profits.
Dtroutma, we actually agree in certain parts, namely on speculation and profits.
I’ve heard the arguments regarding the “fracting” issue. There are two basic arguments, that by drilling in the ground to acquire the gas, the gas will end up leaking into the water supply. This is argued with gas coming through a water tap and being able to be lit on fire. However, additional studies proved that this actually occurs naturally to begin with and the fracting process could not be officially blamed for the cause. However, from my perspective, there should be a greater sense of care in the process to ensure that the fracting process does not actually cause this event. I think that’s expected.
And the lesser used second argument that too much water is used in the process of hydraulic fracting.
Well, the first one is largely a myth as I had eluded too. Two reasons. First, natural gas already does this to a very small extent (not detrimental). Secondly, the source of the natural gas in the fracting process is thousands and thousand of feet below water supplies.
Again, I too would like a certainty that such an event cannot truly occur as I have my own questions not yet answered.
On the second argument about the millions of gallons of water used in the process. The argument is that no abnormal amount of water is used that isn’t already used in larger proportions in other aspects.
One said argument is based on concept of solar panels. In order to maintain the quality of the panels, they have to be cleaned regularly, by using water. And the number of panels required to yield the similar energy output is insane. Again, water is used in most everything, from manufacturing to farming to personal use, etc.
If it can be proved that actual drinking water supplies can be damaged through either means then I too would stand against the current fracting process. But I need more than just conspiracy theories.
However, that doesn’t mean that other means of obtaining oil aren’t equally viable and it doesn’t mean that we should not go ahead with Nuclear and other technologies as they become available and affordable and reasonable.
The reality is we do greater harm to our food supplies by using ethanol than we would to our water supply via fracting. I’m not sold on either.
dj, due respect, but PLEASE do a little reading on fracking. There is NOTHING “natural” about the process. The drilling fluids are “proprietary” information, which made it difficult for EPA or any other agency to prove actual damage, for quite a while. The poisoned water tables are what drilling passed through, in part. The fact that NOBODY can tell you what’s totally going on at depth when the stratum is fractured is another “problem”. The FACT that KNOWN contamination, from Pennsylvania to the west is RAMPANT, is one more case of “screw the planet, we’ll sell it then get off”, being the industry prophecy. Prophecy has a bad habit of being not only impractical, but false.
There is nothing natural about current methods for gathering “natural” gas, and the last administration took off all restraints. With a pipeline coming through my town, we have evidence of just how great the benefits are, as all the gas goes south.
BTW, “fracking” is leading to some backing off on importing liquified natural gas, not a good alternative or primary plan.
Harley, are you still having problems figuring out the difference between profit and margin? I could refer you to a couple of good economics texts, and you could learn for yourself. But in the interest of time, I’ll explain.
Profit is what you give to your pimp. Profit margin is what he let’s you keep. Big Oil is your pimp.
But perhaps you don’t understand the relationship between expense (taxes are an expense) and profit. If your expenses go down, all other things being equal, your profits will go up. If someone else pays your expenses for you (taxpayer-financed corporate welfare), it increases your profits.
Does that explain it to you? It gets tiresome when you keep asking the same question over and over again.
Dtroutma, when it comes down to it, I’m actually somewhat on your side on this one (how ever scary that is for either of us to admit). I wouldn’t want the process to go forward unless there was much greater certainty to the fact of no ill effects. If that can be proven, then I highly advocate for it. But until that is done I’m on the side of the fence that likes the idea, but don’t want it to go into play just yet. Or would that be “on the fence?”
Regardless, until they figure out a better and/or more certain safe means, our other oil sources and methods are more than viable and ample to provide a much greater level of in dependency.
But I’m neither sold on the proposed problems (as the environmentalists have proven themselves fanatics, wolf criers and false prophets far too many times to be trusted) nor am I sold on the safety (because these kind of companies, too, have proven themselves untrustworthy).
Nebulous Premium Member over 13 years ago
I still think that there needs to be an investigation into price fixing in the oil industry.
Yeah, I know. Last time the oil companies paid for a full page ad saying that there was no evidence of large scale price fixing on the retail level. Nobody else was talking about the retail level.
Odon Premium Member over 13 years ago
Just watch the quarterly earnings of the big oil companies for the next several months. They won’t be able to hide the enormous profits the current unrest will yield.
infinite_kydeem over 13 years ago
Compare that to the same in the insurance industry.
You don’t hear nearly as many people complain about insurance even though it costs them much more per year.
Odon Premium Member over 13 years ago
Health insurance premiums are up year after year as are the deductibles and yes the profits generated by these “providers” are (disproportionately) up also.
DjGuardian over 13 years ago
There is actually plenty of excess oil available. This is not the result of supply and demand. This is a result of speculation. It truly is an abhorrent practice. This is the one time that I and most libs will probably stand together.
But just know, speculation is a trader creation, not so much the oil companies themselves (though they do tend to benefit and have gained greater influence in the more recent years).
Yes, greater energy, especially oil, in dependency is a need… but that’s not going to totally solve the price issues as caused by speculation. But it would put a squeeze on those people to act more ethically or face actual penalty.
Motivemagus over 13 years ago
^Actually, Dj, while I am with you on speculation, I am not when you say there is plenty of excess oil. There’s good reason to believe we have reached Peak Oil, and it’s basically downhill from here. When petroleum was discovered in Pennsylvania (yes, Pennsylvania!) it was oozing out of the ground. Now we have to go offshore, or use oil-bearing shale, or just go farther and spend more to get what we can. We need real alternatives. I’m currently reading Atomic Awakening, which claims that we are being pushed back to nuclear, but that there is cause for optimism in terms of making it safe. We’ll see.
Jaedabee Premium Member over 13 years ago
Speculation is part of the free market. Let’s bust us some unions. They’re obviously responsible for the high prices of gas.
annamargaret1866 over 13 years ago
Oh for cryin’ out loud, peak oil is not a myth.
It’s a limited natural resource.
No matter what the Koch brothers and their minions say.
Dtroutma over 13 years ago
While speculation has more to do with “trends” than supply and demand, the oil companies DO always end up with profits. There is no current supply problem, but it will come. The substitution of natural gas, through “fracting” is threatening the nation’s water supplies, so that “environmentally friendly” ring of natural gas is losing it’s luster quickly. But that doesn’t stop industry from putting the “drill baby drill” lady on TV to brainwash morons with “the deeper we go, the more you love us”.
Misdirection is the secret to magic, and making money today.
Carolo1 over 13 years ago
They all got big tax cuts
Bluejayz over 13 years ago
If “peak oil is a myth” then we should do away with the Oil Industry’s depletion allowance tax breaks that pad Oil’s bottom line but cost the Government hundreds of billions of dollars in tax revenue. If oil supplies are unlimited, why should they get corporate welfare for depleting their resource?
Actually, we should get rid of the depletion allowances, regardless of the supply quantities. If it’s wrong for the taxpayers to have to pay for public employees’ pensions, it’s equally wrong for taxpayers to pay for a private company’s profits.
DjGuardian over 13 years ago
Dtroutma, we actually agree in certain parts, namely on speculation and profits.
I’ve heard the arguments regarding the “fracting” issue. There are two basic arguments, that by drilling in the ground to acquire the gas, the gas will end up leaking into the water supply. This is argued with gas coming through a water tap and being able to be lit on fire. However, additional studies proved that this actually occurs naturally to begin with and the fracting process could not be officially blamed for the cause. However, from my perspective, there should be a greater sense of care in the process to ensure that the fracting process does not actually cause this event. I think that’s expected.
And the lesser used second argument that too much water is used in the process of hydraulic fracting.
Well, the first one is largely a myth as I had eluded too. Two reasons. First, natural gas already does this to a very small extent (not detrimental). Secondly, the source of the natural gas in the fracting process is thousands and thousand of feet below water supplies.
Again, I too would like a certainty that such an event cannot truly occur as I have my own questions not yet answered.
On the second argument about the millions of gallons of water used in the process. The argument is that no abnormal amount of water is used that isn’t already used in larger proportions in other aspects.
One said argument is based on concept of solar panels. In order to maintain the quality of the panels, they have to be cleaned regularly, by using water. And the number of panels required to yield the similar energy output is insane. Again, water is used in most everything, from manufacturing to farming to personal use, etc.
If it can be proved that actual drinking water supplies can be damaged through either means then I too would stand against the current fracting process. But I need more than just conspiracy theories.
However, that doesn’t mean that other means of obtaining oil aren’t equally viable and it doesn’t mean that we should not go ahead with Nuclear and other technologies as they become available and affordable and reasonable.
The reality is we do greater harm to our food supplies by using ethanol than we would to our water supply via fracting. I’m not sold on either.
Dtroutma over 13 years ago
dj, due respect, but PLEASE do a little reading on fracking. There is NOTHING “natural” about the process. The drilling fluids are “proprietary” information, which made it difficult for EPA or any other agency to prove actual damage, for quite a while. The poisoned water tables are what drilling passed through, in part. The fact that NOBODY can tell you what’s totally going on at depth when the stratum is fractured is another “problem”. The FACT that KNOWN contamination, from Pennsylvania to the west is RAMPANT, is one more case of “screw the planet, we’ll sell it then get off”, being the industry prophecy. Prophecy has a bad habit of being not only impractical, but false.
There is nothing natural about current methods for gathering “natural” gas, and the last administration took off all restraints. With a pipeline coming through my town, we have evidence of just how great the benefits are, as all the gas goes south.
BTW, “fracking” is leading to some backing off on importing liquified natural gas, not a good alternative or primary plan.
Bluejayz over 13 years ago
Harley, are you still having problems figuring out the difference between profit and margin? I could refer you to a couple of good economics texts, and you could learn for yourself. But in the interest of time, I’ll explain.
Profit is what you give to your pimp. Profit margin is what he let’s you keep. Big Oil is your pimp.
But perhaps you don’t understand the relationship between expense (taxes are an expense) and profit. If your expenses go down, all other things being equal, your profits will go up. If someone else pays your expenses for you (taxpayer-financed corporate welfare), it increases your profits.
Does that explain it to you? It gets tiresome when you keep asking the same question over and over again.
walruscarver2000 about 13 years ago
Glad you got a laugh. Wish I could find somethng funny about you.
DjGuardian about 13 years ago
Dtroutma, when it comes down to it, I’m actually somewhat on your side on this one (how ever scary that is for either of us to admit). I wouldn’t want the process to go forward unless there was much greater certainty to the fact of no ill effects. If that can be proven, then I highly advocate for it. But until that is done I’m on the side of the fence that likes the idea, but don’t want it to go into play just yet. Or would that be “on the fence?”
Regardless, until they figure out a better and/or more certain safe means, our other oil sources and methods are more than viable and ample to provide a much greater level of in dependency.
But I’m neither sold on the proposed problems (as the environmentalists have proven themselves fanatics, wolf criers and false prophets far too many times to be trusted) nor am I sold on the safety (because these kind of companies, too, have proven themselves untrustworthy).